SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 355

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Sanjeevi Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Narasimha Naicker – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. P.B. Ramanujam, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. K. Jayakumar, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 360 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Sholinghur are the revision petitioners.

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the adverse order in I.A. No. 399 of 1997 filed by them an application to amend the plaint.

3. Suit filed by them was to declare their title to scheduled property and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their, possession.

4. In the written statement filed by defendants they denied the right of plaintiffs to any of the reliefs in the plaint.

5. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A. No. 783 of 1990 for an order of injunction. It was dismissed by the Court. Though plaintiffs preferred C.M.A. No. 75 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore, the same did not succeed. Therefore, they moved an application before lower court to amend the plaint seeking recovery of property on the basis of title.

6. Detailed counter statement was filed by respondent and accepting the counter, lower court dismissed the application on the ground that the amendment will change the nature of property and the present relief is not claimed as an alternate relief. What plaintiffs wanted is to substitute the reli

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top